Research Crime: A need for IP law extension to examine Administrative mens rea
This article made a qualitative study in one public unitary university that fed as many as 30 petitions to the High Court of Odisha in a single calendar year, 2023, to find the link between three worrisome epidemics; summarise the findings, calls for research/ action to opine “the need for extension of Intellectual Property (IP) laws to examine Administrative mens rea to counter the research crimes”.
Worrisome Epidemics
1. Aditya Sinha in his 22nd May Article on The New Indian Express article explored that “India has seen a dramatic improvement in its patent-granting process, moving from fewer than 10,000 patents annually in 2016-17 to over 1,00,000 patents in 2023-24”, and “Applicants often draft vague patents to maintain flexibility for future technological or market changes, leading to poorly defined boundaries” and opined to refocus on patent strategy.
2. Soumya Pillai’s 11th September article of The Print titled “India’s research crime is getting worse. Scientists are gaming peer review system” questioned the role of watchdogs in India while exposing the extant volume of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification of data, and misrepresentation used in research.
3. Recent legal journalism shows appointment of ineligible VC of Dr. BhimRao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur and IIM, Rohtak; financial irregularities by the VCs of IIM, Rohtak , RGPV, Bhopal, Pondicherry University and VSSUT, Burla; recruitment scam by the VCs of IIIT, Raipur and DPSRU, Delhi; maladministration and dereliction of duty, lack of sincerity by the VCs of Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University, and Delhi University; Initiation of unlawful DP by the VC of HNLU, Raipur; Violation of norms and running private company by the VC of Salem Periyar University; Contempt of court NLU, Shimla; inaction on complaint of sexual harassment by the VC of HNLU, Raipur. In addition, the VCs are also accused with heinous crimes like abetment to suicide by the VC of Sambalpur University; attempt to murder by the VC of SHUATS University; sexual harassment by the VCs of NUJS, Kolkata and NLUJA, Assam.
Summary of findings
As called by Saumya Pillai to look into the role of responsible watchdogs, this article to examine the role of the VC in the research crimes and findings are summarised as follows:
(i) One Professor, in a meeting of 2021 while he was serving as VC, informed the faculty that a university alumnus is a dignitary in the patent office and hence the faculty shall apply for patents. Also, after reaching sixty years of age he could able to record his first two patents in 2023.
(ii) One paper of one of the teachers has been retracted and the VC promoted him as the Dean of Centre for Distance and Continuing Education with gross violation of laws governing the university (section 23(1) of statutes of university read with BOM: 36-15.5).
(iii) The VC allowed the then Dean of Post-Graduate Studies and Research (DPGSR) to misplace, distort and manipulate the academic regulations prepared by the academic council vide section 27 of VSSUT Act 2008 and approved by the Board during 2012-13 as reported by the present DPGSR in response to direction of the High Court of Odisha in Sasmita Kumari Padhy V. State of Odisha & Ors.
(iv) The present DPGSR uploaded fabricated and forged anonymous document as Ph.D regulations of the university in violation of the position of law settled by the High Court of Karnataka in Valerian Fernandes V. State of Karnataka (2024), the Kerala High Court in Rahul O.R. & Ors V. IIST &Ors (2020). The VC not only allowed DPGSR to do so, but also, certified that the fabricated and forged anonymous document are the genuine records in absence of signatures of the members of the Board of 2012-13.
(v) One member of the academic community as a duty under section 9 of University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations on academic integrity, 2018 informed the university regarding research malpractice by one teacher. No visible action has been taken against the accused teacher. The VC allowed the said teacher to misrepresent as supervisor of the Ph.D thesis despite of the facts that the said teacher has no background research in the concerned discipline.
(vi) Two students detected the faults in the e-contents of lecture notes and plagiarism by a teacher as a part of their PG dissertation. The dissertation was allowed to be examined and the committee constituted by the DPGSR evaluated the dissertation. But, the university did not published results. The students approached High Court of Odisha for publication of the results.
The VC along with other opposite parties (OPs) in WP(C) 14394/2021 harassed the students for detecting faults in the e-contents of lecture notes and plagiarism by a teacher:
• Advanced one document in the name of resolutions of Departmental academic committee (DAC) which is not available in the anonymous document referred as M.Sc. Regulations in university webpage; and,
• Made colourable use of chapter VI Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules to convert the orders of High Court.
(vii) Clause 2.16 of All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations provides for weekly teaching engagement of teachers as: 16 hours for Assistant Professors, 14 hours for Associate Professors and 14 hours for Professors. The VC reduced the teaching engagement below 10 hours a week for the university teachers. This sort of academic dilution in violation of AICTE Regulations not only wasting around 15 crore rupees per annum of public money, but also found to be promoting academic and research crimes in the university.
(viii) A close look at the plaints of WP(C) 20031 of 2021 of High Court of Odisha reveals a case in an earlier instant. One teacher, after detecting the plagiarism by his student, requested retraction of the article and the retraction notice reads as “This article has been retracted at the request of the Author.” But, the previous VC raised this author requested retraction and taken action against the said teacher. The High Court found the action of the previous VC as arbitrary.
Call for research/ action
Based on the reports discussed and findings, Supra, this article:
1. Sees the research crimes as a result of academic dilution, incentives for research dishonesty, academic harassment to the member detecting the misconduct, failure of watchdogs, and administrative mens rea; and hence, calls for case to case examination on the role of the university VC in the research crimes. The trends in corruption by the VCs discussed above also supports this call.
2. Sees the academic dilution is a violation of AICTE Regulations. This article expects the AICTE nominee to act as watchdog for this sort of violations adversely affecting public money as well as resulting academic crimes; and count this as his responsibility to see that the provisions of the regulation be followed in the university.
3. Research crimes are in violation of the UGC regulations. This article finds it as the job role of the UGC nominee in the Board to see that the regulations are strictly followed; perpetrators are adequately punished as per the regulation, incentives for academic/ research crimes shall not be allowed, and academic harassment to the member (who detected the misconduct) not only be avoided but also to be suitably rehabilitated/ compensated.
Opinion
The policy makers may revisit the IP laws to include the provisions to examine the administrative mens rea to counter the research crimes effectively.
Post a comment